tflex

Caesar's assassination put the nail in the coffin and ruined any chance to reinstate the Republic. It probably would have been wiser to let Ceasar die of old age or in battle. How can you place it squarely on Augustus, the Republic system was on the decline for 100 years before Augustus. It was a complete mess long before, Augustus found himslef at odds with the supporters of the Republic and simply put the nail in the coffin. It was already dead, he just made sure there was no going back, as you said. The flawed system was to blame, then the supporters, like Cato, that refused to adjust to the times and fix the obvious problems, then rogue generals like Sulla and Caesar etc, who exploited the situation.

Well, it's not just wiki's opinion, there are other sources too. All three dates are subject to interpretation. I personally think the Republic fell in 44 BC, but only became official in 27 BC; it never recovered after 44BC. Whichever way you look at it, Cato had a defining role in it's collapse. The Gracchi brothers, Sulla, Marius all had a hand in destroying the Republic and they all lived long before any of the three dates. There was no one person responsible for the Republic's failures, but Cato certainly was one of the major culprits because of his official position and influence.

There are 20 choices, only two of them are from the US. There are six non-western choices, I don't consider Russia to be western especially durinig the communist era. Mohammed, Buddah and Jesus do not fit the criteria. Also, there are two Russians, and King Menes of Egypt would be considered in Africa, and I just couldn't find any other African leaders to make this list. Pizzaro and Cortes are on my top 50 list, Cortez only held a governorship given to him by Emperor Charles V. Charles was more powerful than Cortes, and called all the shots, and thats why Cortes didn't make my list. The same goes for Pizzaro, to be the most influential you at least have to be the undisputed leader. I disagree, Lincoln is arguably the greatest U.S. president, this is backed up by most polls. The civil war seriously threatened the existance and unity of the U.S., and it's power. After the Civil war was out of the way, the U.S. was able to grow into the superpower that it is today. So, Lincoln's actions and success ended up having a huge impact on our world. I will add this to my first post: The criteria I used was based on the following: 1. The person must have held the highest position of power recognized. 2. This person cannot only be a Scientist, Religous figure, Philospher etc. He must hold a powerful leadership position. 3. The person must have used this platform of power to accomplish the unthinkable. 4. The person must represent a powerful civilization, for example Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Imperial China, Persia, Britian, the U.S. etc. 5. The persons actions must have had a big impact on our world today for better or worse. Obviously, there are more than 20 leaders under this criteria, but the maximum choices the poll will allow is 20. I think the leaders I chose fit the criteria well. 19 of the choices were also selected by Michael H. Hart's 'Most Influential Influential Persons in History'. I think Scipio Africanus was the only one not mentioned in Hart's list. I simply couldn't put Augustus and Caesar, and leave out Scipio. And as I said, you're welcome to add other candidates. Personally, I'm torn between Augustus, Constantine and Hitler. I think these three had a huge influence on history and our world today.

No, it was unprecedented. Call me crazy O Valerius - but when a guy becomes Dictator for life - I'd call the state a Dictatorship. It doesn't really matter if the Dictator still calls it a Republic. What do you think Sulla had? Because he gave it up a couple years before he died doesn't mean that he didn't have the power to be dictator until he died. If that's the case, then the "Republic" fell decades before Caesar, however absurd that might be. Here's what wiki says about it: "The precise date in which the Roman Republic changed into the Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation, with the dates of Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC), the Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC), and the date which the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title "Augustus" (January 16, 27 BC), being some of the common choices." wikipedia

Which one leader had the biggest impact on history and our world today, and why? Which leader is the greatest in terms of accomplishments and influence? I know it's hard to choose, but if you had to choose one person to research and write about, who would be your favorite to fit the two above questions. The criteria I used was based on the following: 1. The person must have held the highest position of power recognized. 2. This person cannot only be a Scientist, Religous figure, Philospher etc. He must hold a powerful leadership position. 3. The person must have used this platform of power to accomplish the unthinkable. 4. The person must represent a powerful civilization, for example Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Imperial China, Persia, Britian, the U.S. etc. 5. The persons actions must have had a big impact on our world today for better or worse. P.S. If I'm missing some important names, please mention them

Two threads that will answer your questions: 'Julius Caesar.. Good and Bad Points' & 'Greatest Roman Figure'. You will find a lot of arguments for and against the questions you posed. Caesar is obviously a hero. Rome benefited greatly from his military achievements and adopted his name for the Emperors to come.

I disagree, many of Cato's actions were personal and damaged any chance of comprimise being made to save the Republic. Cato's refusal to approve Caesar's agrarian laws, showed that he let his personal hatred for Caesar affect his judgement as a politician. I guess he never recovered from Caesar taking it to his sister. I thought Cato subscribed to a Stoic philosiphy; on the contrary I think many of his actions in the last 20 years of his life were based on raw emotions, which ultimately ruined any chance of finding a midpoint with Caesar.

Ofcourse, Man United.

Ofcourse, it was a dictatorship much before the official start of the Principate. As Germanicus already mentioned, you can't have a Republic with a Dictator for life running it. By that time Caesar was the man, he did as he pleased, and most of the traditions and laws of the Republic went out of the window.

Yes, but if we were to name one individual, I would put them in this order. 1. Julius Caesar 2. Scipio Africanus 3. Augustus

If they're so mighty, why do they always get trounced by other teams.

He didn't die long before, just a little before. His stubborness had a huge impact on the fall of the Republic.

Cato also had a massive ego and was blindly jealous of Caesar. He prefered to kill himslef than live under Caesar, that has nothing to do with principle or morality, it has to do with Cato's air inflated ego. The guy didn't even know how to stab himself, he's not only immoral but a fool.

The three most important things to me in any world cup. 1. Argentina wins it all. 2. Brazil does NOT win the cup. (I despise Brazil more than any other team). 3. Argentina beats England if they play. In that order. My second choice after Argentina is Germany.

Lets see, the last time England won the cup was in 1966, that would be 40 years ago, in a game they invented. Argentina has 2 cups under it's belt and the last time was 20 years ago. If we are going to talk about the Falkland islands, I support Britian anyday militarily, but if we are going to talk about football I bet on Argentina anyday, they just know how to do it better.

Argentina rules whether they win or not. For those English fans who hate Argentina ever since the 86 worldcup when Maradona beat you by a hand goal, you will never get your revenge in the World cup, everytime you get the chance you get trounced again and again. I hope these two teams meet again., it will be a heated match.

The impending collapse of the Byzantine Empire inspired some scholars to flee and take up residence in Italy (and elsewhere) which facilitated a trend that was already under way. Remember, the Dark Ages weren't so dark in Eastern Europe. Interesting, so the Byzantine Empire was actually a negative thing for western Europe. It took away from them wealth and education instead of spreading it. Is that the case? I always thought it was odd that the West europeans could not learn from the Byzantines, especially since they believed in the same religion. Chrisitianity helped eastern Europe, but hurt western Europe, where the west Europeans simply more fundamentalist? Also, I would have thought Byzantine would have opened up trade from the east into all of Europe, it seems the opposite happened with western Europe. I could never understand that part of history, why thhigs where the way they where.

I voted for the late republic, because it was such a mess with all the Chaos. Without Chaos, things can be pretty boring.

As I already explained in the other thread, first and foremost you have to blame the exclusionary system of the Republic, second the Patricians and powerful families who had the power and ample time to modify the system before things went out of control, and third ambitious commanders who took advantage of the weakenend system, In that order.

Great posts and very helpful. Also, why did nothing change for 500 years? Thats a long time to go without trade and proper education. My second question is, how did Europe get out of the dark ages, what had to change for it to move into the middle ages?

It's one man's theory without hard evidence, nonetheless an interesting study. But, the system was still exclusionary and favored the powerful old families of Rome and Patricians. This is why there was widespread discontent towards the end of the late republic, and we have proof of this because we know some Roman armies marched on Rome with a fair amount of public support. MacArthur was not able to march on the capital and take over the country; thats all I will say about it.

Just wondering what conditions led to the dark ages and why it lasted for so long, over 500 years. I know the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of christianity were culprits, but why did it take so long for Europe to recover? and what other factors contributed in causing and prolonging the dark ages? Also, I never understood why the dark ages occured during a period of stable and warm climate, and the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Industrial age all took place during the little ice age, a period marked by freezing and unstable weather that caused starvation and mass plagues such as the black death, that almost wiped out Europe's population. I think thats very odd, I would have thought the opposite would happen.

Well, I admit Caesar was partly responsible for all the chaos that was going on, but Cato doesn't admit that his friends were also responsible, like Cato the Younger etc., or that the system had a major flaw that needed to be fixed. Thats a nice saying, who said that?

C'mon Cato, MacArthur didn't march on Washington DC and force Congress to declare him dictator and kill anyone who opposed him. You prove my point exactly, MacArthur was an influential general who was overly ambitious, but still couldn't get far. The system made it impossible for him to gain true popular support for his personal ambitions. In Lincoln's time the system was far from a modern democracy, especially with slavery. Still even that example cannot be remotely compared to what Roman generals were able to do. I think I'll take their word over yours. Ofcourse it was more exclusionary, thats what an Imperial system is based on. I'm just saying that overall it did very well and thats why it lasted for 500 years, like the republic.

Agreed, you can't compare the other empires to Rome. Rome was successful in holding it's empire together for over 600 years, if you start counting from the time when the Italian Peninsula was consolidated and the beginning of the Punic wars right until the fall in 476AD.